DISCARDING IVF EMBRYOS iS MURDER says Republicans.
Thats the headline you expect our mainstream media to announce as that in fact is their position.
However the dying journalism feels that such an editorial would be too woke or liberal.
#Alabama #IVF #Dobbs #trump #VoteBlur #RoeYourVote
Alabama exposes GOP buyer’s remorse on ‘personhood,’ following IVF ruling https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/26/alabama-exposes-gop-buyers-remorse-personhood-following-ivf-ruling/
@blamellors that's not at all what the Alabama ruling said, though.
There was nothing about murder on the table for the court to decide, and in fact the court drew an explicit and stark line against this ruling being able to be applied in such a case.
It was also not about discarding IVF embryos, as the ruling itself recognized discarding as routine and fine.
That's just not what the ruling was about, despite the hysterical folks out there yelling.
@volkris the case was about a woman who dropped her testtube embryos and whether she could be charged for the destruction of embryo’s. The judges ruled that in fact an embryo is a child. Reading comprehension is a thing.
Yes, reading comprehension is a thing, so here's a link to the ruling so you can read it yourself. Please do!
The ruling goes out of its way to get ahead of so many of this misrepresentations about what it was about.
For example, NO it wasn't about a woman being charged for destruction of embryos as it was emphatically not a criminal matter, and it was a suit against the facility for an incident that clearly showed negligence.
Read the ruling. It debunks the stories so many are trying to spread.
@volkris yes your interpretation versus the millions of us who heard what they were ruling and why IVF facilities suspended IVF and embryo storage. Flogging a dead horse is your problem but the rest of us know why the GOP is tushing to backtrack. Btw i read the ruling.
@blamellors but it sounds like you DIDN'T hear what they were ruling.
What you said they were ruling doesn't match the actual ruling, which I linked to.
The actual ruling had a different defendant, in different circumstances, facing a different legal process, relying on different legal concepts than the story that's going around.
Once again, we need to call out this propaganda, not promote it when we can so easily debunk it ourselves.
